Livingston Thompson - Guest Columnist ONE OF the challenges we face at this time each year is to understand the direction Government is taking, so that we can decide whether we want to journey with them. We also listen for the critique that the Opposition makes of the Government's economic policy, to help us understand the predicament in which we live. So far, however, we have seen more zeal than clarity and I do not feel closer to understanding the economic policy of either the Government or the Opposition. Mr. Audley Shaw, as is usually the case, waxeth mightily on how to get the country to be indebted in a better way and Mr. Golding has lost me in a baffling array of weighty issues with no logical sequence. Together with the Finance Minister, they give me the impression that the average citizen is a spectator to his or her own destiny, over which they have been called to preside. At no point yet in the whole debate is it evident that individual electors can make a difference to the economy.
MAJOR WEAKNESS
A major weakness in the present Budget Debate, then, is the absence of an economic vision in which the role of every citizen is understood. It is clear that the Government, or maybe more accurately the Finance Minister, does not wish (a) to return to a fixed exchange rate policy. That position, incidentally, is strongly supported by the directors of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In the 2005 Article IV Consultation Report, which was published two days before the Budget Debate was opened, the IMF directors, "underscored the importance of maintaining a flexible exchange rate regime, aimed at safeguarding the external competitiveness of the economy." In addition to this policy, which the Finance Minister goes at unnecessary lengths to defend, it is also clear that (b) the Government wishes to minimise waste in spending, (c) control inflation and (d) reduce the foreign debt. One has to say that these statements of intention express the vision of the Government but the Finance Minister has not said so. Now, if these points are central to the economic vision of the Government, in addition to listing them, there are some other things that it would be helpful for the Finance Minister to do.
ECONOMIC POLICY NEEDS A NAME
The first is that the minister should give the economic policy a name, that is, a simple description that even a secondary school child could understand. In order to understand the thing, we must know its name. If we do not know its name we will always be suspicious of it. In fact, one would have to say that because people do not know what the Finance Minister is talking about and how it relates to their decision making, they would be wise to have nothing to do with it. In the absence of a name, we have to call this policy a 'Duppy Policy'. Knowing the name of the economic policy is part of what is involved with engaging with it. Jacob, [Genesis 32:24-28] wrestled all night with an angel [a duppy-like man] whose name he wanted to know and whose blessing he wanted to obtain, but we do not have all night.
ROLE OF PRIVATE CITIZENS
The second thing that the Finance Minister needs to do with this 'Duppy Policy' is to indicate the role that he envisages for private citizens. I want to suggest that the most critical stakeholder in the economic and social life of the country is not the state crucial though that is; it is not the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica as important as that is; and it is not foreign direct investment as necessary as that may be.
The Finance Minister was quite articulate about the role of the state, the private sector and foreign investment in facilitating growth. The way in which he seems to consider the private citizens is simply as recipients of social services, though, in my view, they are the most critical stake-holders.
Now, we may love hand-outs and there is certainly unemployment, poverty and limited access to education and training. However, there are more progressive ways in which to link private citizens to social policy than to use the old, tired terms of reducing unemployment and poverty, because in them, citizens are only statistical figures. That older rhetoric should be replaced by the talk of facilitating empowerment. In this regard I must express my agreement with the Opposition Spokesman on Finance, who called for a clear policy on rural development. Mind you, there is also absent from the debate a clear policy on development in urban areas, which are trailing rural towns in desirable living condition levels. The energy and rhetoric of Government should be focused on creating space for our creativity to be expressed and on removing the structures (both physical and mental) that inhibit the power of citizens.
The Government, therefore, must be bold to name its economic policy for in that way private citizens may both understand it and find a role in it for themselves.
Rev. Dr. Livingstone Thompson is a Jamaican theologian living and working in the Republic of Ireland. He may be contacted at lthompson@citc.ie.
